Thoughts on Creating New Stars

[DaNewGuy]

For as long as memory serves the IWC has always been keen on new stars. Whether it be that X should be pushed to the top of the card, or Y company should hire certain wrestlers. Now its clear that new stars have to be created; it isn't possible for any one generation of wrestlers to last forever. What I question is the pressing need for multiple guys to be pushed, and the method of creating stars.

In the last few years there has been a 'youth movement' in WWE. In theory this means that they're creating new stars. However this seems quite sudden and forced, as if someone has realised that no-one's ready at a level to take a top spot in the company. Would this as good a method as any, or would it be better to see people rise to the top gradually. Two examples (clieched though they may be. In 1984 Hulk Hogan effectively appeared from nowhere to become a massive star. He had earlier had a forgettable run as a heel in the WWF, before moving on to other territories and Japan. He was 'hot-shotted' to the top. In 1988 (ignoring the brief stint in the WWF that preceded this) a young Shawn Micheals debuted. He started as a tag team wrestler, then broke away to become a midcarder. He main evented the 1992 Survivor Series in a losing effort by chance, due to the Ultimate Warrior having issues, but he wasn't really a top guy until at least his fued with Diesel. He was slowly built.


Secondly, how is it that stars are created? It's been said that featuring them on a consistent basis in high profile roles gets people over as stars. The Miz is a example of this at the moment. Alternatively there's the dominance of already established stars. This was sees in Kennedy's WWE debut and early run where he beat multiple (past) World Champions. There's the long sustained undefeated streak employed to great effect by Goldberg, or, to a lesser extent, Umaga. Others have said that just being consistently good gets a guy to a point where they're acknowledged as a top guy. They use Matt Hardy as an example of this (contentious as the claim that has been and remains consistently good may be).

Thoughts, opinions, ideas?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

The WWE's "youth movement" did have something of a rushed feeling to it in 2010. The reason is because a large number of big names in the WWE either left the company in 2010, were forced to take extended leaves of absences to heal/rest up from injuries and there's a good chance that most of the established veterans left will be leaving in a few years themselves.

The youth movement of 2010 came about because the WWE didn't have a choice. People were needed to fill vacated high profile spots and that means that the focus of the company had to change. The truth is that the WWE really should have initiated this youth movement in 2008 or 2009 when there were still lots of huge names still left on the roster. But at least the youth movement happened and it needed to happen.

Sometimes the methods of creating new stars do seem to differ quite a bit. Some wrestlers seemingly come out of nowhere and wind up the talk of the wrestling world almost over night whereas others are built at a slow and steady pace over the course of a few to several years. When Stone Cold Steve Austin won the King of the Ring in 1996 and coined Austin 3:16, a superstar was born right then and there. It was a career defining moment for Austin and he skyrocketed to the top after that. The Rock's natural charisma and comfort with who he was and what he wanted spoke volumes. Anything he did or said, any move he made, the slightest twitch or change of facial expression had fans on the edge of their seats. These are examples of catching lightning in a bottle. Austin was a well respected wrestler by the time he came to the WWF due to his days in WCW and ECW but he wasn't a "star" and The Rock came from "wrestling royalty" by being a 3rd generation wrestler. Like Hulk Hogan in the mid 80s, Austin and The Rock were the right characters at the right time. You can't create stars like those wrestlers at will, it simply doesn't happen. That's like the head of a record label sending a producer out to scout for a garage band that he can turn into the next Rolling Stones. You have to hope that lighting strikes because you simply can't purposely generate that level of greatness on a whim.

 

[shattered dreams]

People are so in love with the youth movement that they overlook the issues surrounding it. If WWE had not pulled the plug on practically every new main event push over the past 5 years then they would not have had to do the all at once approach. They let the politicking stop the guys and then suddenly they realized they didn't have anything fresh to do there and the older wrestlers were dropping like flies. It is impossible to push a button and create the top guys, you can, however, at least build a main eventer. The youth movement is basically a lottery ticket approach where they hope at least one will catch the magic and make it work because they do not have time to build someone up the traditional way. The youth movement approach has led to a decrease in recognizable veterans.

I do not have a problem with the youth movement, just the idea that youth movement is a preferable business plan opposed to a necessary reaction to correct prior mistakes. IMO it is sad to look at what WWE could have had over the past few years opposed to what they are main eventing now. The guys being pushed now all seem somewhat worse than the people that were not good enough so recently.

 

[ABMorales787]

When it comes to making a new star, the first thing that should come first is commitment from that character. That's first and the reason is simple. Brock Lesnar, Lex Luger and Ultimate Warrior are good examples of what happens when you aren't fully committed.

Your next step should be establishing a connection with the fans. Otherwise, they won't give a crap and your not getting the job done right. Your consequence being bad sales of PPV or TV ratings. I somehow doubt Big Bossman vs The Big Show for the WWF title at Armageddon 1999 was a good idea. Neither character had that connection with the fans that would make them think this was more worth it than the undercard matches.

The next step would be to have the character build credibility. That's a much easier task for heels as all they really have to do is be absolute jerks and break anyone. But that can very easily backfire and turn you into a "One-Hit-Wonder". Like Kane in his early years, or Yokozuna. If they don't develop well that intangible that garnered so much hatred from the crowd at first will boil to nothing more than "he's not so tough". That can also backfire for a face pretty badly. Like it did to Goldberg.

WWE has had a bad tendency to rush pushes oftenly. And more often than not, that ends up scarring a wrestler's career pretty much permanently. But they also have built huge stars like The Rock, Austin, HBK and Triple H. If you look at what I wrote above, that's pretty much how they did it. But they don't seem to get it these days. Meanwhile TNA doesn't have the kind of exposure that would allow guys like Mr. Anderson, Samoa Joe, Matt Morgan and The Pope reach that high level of attention they need to break out completely.